geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:11:11 GMT
Okay, I'm canceling this vote.  I've removed the clover bits from  
Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for  
1.1 soonish.

Thanks for all of your input.  Sorry I jumped the gun and created the  
release before the vote.


On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm  
>>> being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a  
>>> community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are  
>>> addressing that responsibility.
>> Mmmkay.  I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license  
>>> for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit  
>>> of an unknown to me...
>>> from
>>> Product: Clover
>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>> Expiry: Never
>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the  
>>> Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign  
>>> or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL  
>>> ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain  
>>> what this is about?
>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means.  But Clover grants  
>> licenses for open source projects.  I used the license they  
>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds.  This is shared  
>> configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the  
>> configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin.
> Sorry..
> I Am Not A Lawyer
> And Don't Want To Be
> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't  
> think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that  
> this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that  
> we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you  
> convince me otherwise?
> --kevan

View raw message